Michelin Coming Back?

[aussiegman]

And I'd welcome them with a parade and fireworks. I'm sick and tired of all the niceties that fly around every weekend toward Pirelli. They make crap, inconsistent tires, period. Bring back the pros.

I personally find comments such as this hard to understand and a little ill considered. Especially when it seems most would happily accept a performance difference based on manufacturer. It makes the "Pirelli Bashing" sound more like sour grapes because a favored team isn't getting the best from them as opposed to an argument based on logical reasoning.

As this is a highly subjective topic, I personally think the tyres have made this the most enjoyable championship in a great number of years as teams now need to account for the tyre performance to make everything work on race day!! Why should the tyres "not" be a major consideration in strategy??

If you think the current Pirelli's are such a joke, then surely you woudl support simply mandating a tyre that lasts the entire race distance and has a definable performance drop off over its life. Or how about mandating pit stops within a predetermined lap window to retain the pit stop work part of the equation and keep tyre performance out of it all together.

As such, (again just my opinion) it is not the tyres that are inconsistent, period. It is the inconsistency of the teams ability to get up to speed and come to grips with how the new tyre performs. Everybody has the same tyres and it is a level playing field.

If the tyres are setup sensitive, be sensitive to your setup. If they respond to heat cycling a certain way, cycle them accordingly.

Previously teams never had to think about it as the Bridgestones were too durable and effectively took tyre strategy out of the equation, allowing a huge comparative advantage to established teams that had resources to optimise them coupled with years of optimisation work. The Pirelli's have removed this and evened out field to my mind.

The Pirelli’s have definable and predetermined performance envelope in which they work. There is finally a definable difference in compounds whereas with the Bridgestones there was eventually no comparative differentiation in the old soft vs hard compounds.

The Pirelli's respond very differently to heat cycling, suspension and chassis setup as well as chassis weight distribution and engine loadings than the Bridgestones ever did. This sensitivity is not a bad thing, it is what makes the racing and tyre strategy so important and the watching enjoyable.

So what 2012 has now is a situation where teams are being forced to think about the tyres. Some are out of their depth and some are well out of their comfort zone in trying to cope with how to get the tyres to work within their performance envelope.

I have had conversations surrounding the Renault engines effect on tyre performance. It is known to be down on power and likely has a better torque profile as well. This it is undoubtedly helping Lotus and Red Bull preserve their rear tyres giving them a performance advantage whereas the Mercedes and Ferrari engines aggressive torque delivery chew them up.

It seems all the top tier teams can get good performance out of the Pirelli’s. But some struggle to get good AND consistent performance.

The fact that at the we have had 7 winners from 9 events across 5 constructors is a testament to that. What also shows that tyre performance is there if you work hard and smart to find it is the mix of fastest laps across the teams and the other podium places.

Fastest laps from teams like Lotus and Sauber, wins from Williams and podiums from Lotus all point to the teams working to get the best from the tyre and thinking outside the box.

McLaren and its drivers are the team that seem to be all at sea and are being very slow to adapt to the new tyres. Mercedes to are struggling mostly with rear tyre wear issues, likely engine induced.

IMHO some of the best anecdotal evidence that the Pirelli’s work as part of the category this spread of fastest lap times are being set by various teams including Williams, Force India and Sauber at various stages throughout the races and not only the top teams. So teams can get good performance over a narrow window, but getting them to last takes proper engineering and some forethought. As such and as you would expect, the spread of the ultimate fastest laps and the winners is a mix of the usual suspects and the new up and comers who are getting their head around the tyres at a similar speed or better than some of the more stolid and unresponsive established teams

In the end, I think blaming the Pirelli tyres is tantamount to the old saying, “A bad tradesman always blames his tools.”

Some of the teams need to harden up, take a good look in the mirror and decide if they really want to be in F1 and are prepared to work for wins not rest on past exploits and expect the trophies to come to them easy.

[Cam]

Some of the teams need to harden up, take a good look in the mirror and decide if they really want to be in F1 and are prepared to work for wins not rest on past exploits and expect the trophies to come to them easy.

That's a bit harsh mate. You have some of the finest engineers on the planet who can't make these tyres work and even worse, can't understand why what they think should work, doesn't correlate from track to track. It all points to Pirelli not giving consistent rubber. Okay, spice the show up, have rubber that fades, drops off cliffs, has a small window etc, no problem. I am happy with that. The problem is, and has been all season, is that the answers don't work as expected. The teams understand the window, they understand to keep heat between 2 numbers, they understand how the car makes the heat - they do that and it still doesn't work. Ergo - not good rubber.

All the teams want is a product that they know reacts the same each time. They can then equate out for other conditions. Previous tyre companies gave the teams this - a known factor. Pirelli just seems like a new varied batch at each race - hence the 'Pirelli Lottery' term.

Michelin will bring back a certain quality which, I for one, think is lacking. Is Michelin perfect, no, but competition breeds achievements and that is want we all want to see.

[aussiegman]

That's a bit harsh mate. You have some of the finest engineers on the planet who can't make these tyres work and even worse, can't understand why what they think should work, doesn't correlate from track to track. It all points to Pirelli not giving consistent rubber. Okay, spice the show up, have rubber that fades, drops off cliffs, has a small window etc, no problem. I am happy with that. The problem is, and has been all season, is that the answers don't work as expected. The teams understand the window, they understand to keep heat between 2 numbers, they understand how the car makes the heat - they do that and it still doesn't work. Ergo - not good rubber.

All the teams want is a product that they know reacts the same each time. They can then equate out for other conditions. Previous tyre companies gave the teams this - a known factor. Pirelli just seems like a new varied batch at each race - hence the 'Pirelli Lottery' term.

Michelin will bring back a certain quality which, I for one, think is lacking. Is Michelin perfect, no, but competition breeds achievements and that is want we all want to see.

I disagree.

Some of the smartest engineers are getting them to work. Red Bull, Lotus and Sauber can all get the tyres to work. Looks at what Ferrari has done so far from zero to hero, helped in no small way by Alonso who has figured out the tyres and can get them to work with the car he has.

The biggest problem is that the tyres require a more holistic approach then was previously used as well as some out of the box thinking. Some of the "engineers" are throwing old methods at the problem and wondering why it doesn't work rather than being innovative and looking at the whole package from a different directions.

Proof that this is sometimes needed is the wholesale management changes it took at Williams for them to regain some of their past competitiveness. Some of the teams just seem to have grown complacent and others seem to be marking time until the new engine formula arrives (both comments directly from someone that works for an F1 team).

IN the end, the Pirelli's are sensitive to heat cycling. Rubber burnt out in qualifying does not bounce back like the Bridgestones. Engine torque can overheat the rear and cause them to "fall off the cliff", so this needs to be managed. As does the KERS for the same reasons. Mid corner KERS input can overpower the rears enough to overheat them and you have a cascade effect. Track temp is an issue, as is a number of other things.

The fact some are getting them to work means that they do work. It just requires a little thinking and maybe some luck to get it right before the other guys.

Also a quote from Scarbs blog:

"With other teams also making suspension alterations it appears the enigmatic 2012 Pirelli tyres are starting to be understood."

[Cam]

Hmm, I'm not so sure the teams have it as sussed as you say. Maybe they do. I can only react to their comments in the press and they all seem to say the same thing - we know what to do but we can't do it all the time.

In any elite sport, having a component that is critical to success, fail when you expect it succeed, would be counter productive and I imagine, quite frustrating.

Having the tyres as part of the package that makes success is needed in F1 and I think Bridgestone did that really well...maybe too well. We've become used to that. And you're right, there is definitely different thinking required for these current tyres, both from an engineering view and the fans view. I, like many engineers, can't get my head around it, simply because it defies logic (well, mine anyways).

Bring on Michelin!

[strad]

aussiegman
All of that aside...I hate the damn marbles or clag.
I understand what you're saying and it indeed has some merit, but the exceedingly rapid deteriation also leads to a ton of marbles and the drivers don't dare go off line even on the straights. It makes attempting a pass a very touchy thing.

[Lycoming]

Where they occur, they certainly make going off line a bit treacherous but even in 2011 when it was worse, it wasn't that much of a deterrent. I think they tend to be deposited in areas where you can't really pass anyways, such as turn 8 at turkey.

[FW17]

aussiegman
All of that aside...I hate the damn marbles or clag.
I understand what you're saying and it indeed has some merit, but the exceedingly rapid deteriation also leads to a ton of marbles and the drivers don't dare go off line even on the straights. It makes attempting a pass a very touchy thing.

Strad, are you saying that there were no marbles during the bridgestone era?

All the teams want is a product that they know reacts the same each time. They can then equate out for other conditions. Previous tyre companies gave the teams this - a known factor. Pirelli just seems like a new varied batch at each race - hence the 'Pirelli Lottery' term.

The tyres are the same for all teams and all races. You seem to assume that we had the same conditions at 2 different tracks (temp, road surface and cornering speed) which is absolutely not the case.

Sensitivity of various parameters is one of the things that make F1 a spectacle.

Has everyone here forgotten the term tyre blister? thanks to bridgestone control tyres this is a forgotten term

[aussiegman]

Hmm, I'm not so sure the teams have it as sussed as you say. Maybe they do. I can only react to their comments in the press and they all seem to say the same thing - we know what to do but we can't do it all the time.

In any elite sport, having a component that is critical to success, fail when you expect it succeed, would be counter productive and I imagine, quite frustrating.

Having the tyres as part of the package that makes success is needed in F1 and I think Bridgestone did that really well...maybe too well. We've become used to that. And you're right, there is definitely different thinking required for these current tyres, both from an engineering view and the fans view. I, like many engineers, can't get my head around it, simply because it defies logic (well, mine anyways).

Bring on Michelin!

Mate, I absolutely hear what your saying but still disagreel!!

The engineer in me tends to look at it a little differently, as perhaps a chance to really cut loose and maybe get a serious performance edge like BrawnGP did back in 2009 with a little out of the box thinking.

The lawyer and masochist in me (yes I am an engineer AND a lawyer, go figure) thinks that if this was a US based series there would be either a law suit or more crashes...

aussiegman
All of that aside...I hate the damn marbles or clag.
I understand what you're saying and it indeed has some merit, but the exceedingly rapid deteriation also leads to a ton of marbles and the drivers don't dare go off line even on the straights. It makes attempting a pass a very touchy thing.

Where they occur, they certainly make going off line a bit treacherous but even in 2011 when it was worse, it wasn't that much of a deterrent. I think they tend to be deposited in areas where you can't really pass anyways, such as turn 8 at turkey.

I don't think that they are such a huge deterrent, but they are definitely more noticeable. Almost akin to an idea once jokingly touted by one J.Clarkson of sprinklers on corners for F1. Well maybe not..

But never the less, 2012 has seen some seriously impressive overtaking maneuvers as well as some very poorly executed ones “cough, Maldonaldo”.

There has been more overtaking this year than any other i can think of. Most of that is the tyres, some is DRS, very little is KERS as it negates itself really. I always thought a KERS system similar to the DRS where a car within 1 second gets extra KERS to help attack the car in front could work...

[aussiegman]

aussiegman
All of that aside...I hate the damn marbles or clag.
I understand what you're saying and it indeed has some merit, but the exceedingly rapid deteriation also leads to a ton of marbles and the drivers don't dare go off line even on the straights. It makes attempting a pass a very touchy thing.

Strad, are you saying that there were no marbles during the bridgestone era?

All the teams want is a product that they know reacts the same each time. They can then equate out for other conditions. Previous tyre companies gave the teams this - a known factor. Pirelli just seems like a new varied batch at each race - hence the 'Pirelli Lottery' term.

The tyres are the same for all teams and all races. You seem to assume that we had the same conditions at 2 different tracks (temp, road surface and cornering speed) which is absolutely not the case.

Sensitivity of various parameters is one of the things that make F1 a spectacle.

Has everyone here forgotten the term tyre blister? thanks to bridgestone control tyres this is a forgotten term

Exactly and very well said!! =D> =D> =D>

[strad]

Strad, are you saying that there were no marbles during the bridgestone era?

Williams, Not at all, but it has certainly been exacerbated by the FIAs desire to have quickly degrading tires.
As for myself, I would be rid of all these farcical mechanisms designed to enhance the show.
I guess it could happen, if I live long enough, but I doubt I will ever look back on these as the good old days.
By the way,
This is a lot of heated discussion over a rumour. I'm sure Jean Todt would like it but it might not be that easy.

[aussiegman]

That's a bit harsh mate. You have some of the finest engineers on the planet who can't make these tyres work and even worse, can't understand why what they think should work, doesn't correlate from track to track. It all points to Pirelli not giving consistent rubber.

I think that this is exactly something that some teams are struggling with because they are not thinking outside the box and considering all the variables.

Variations in track surface (friction), differing track temperatures, brake induced heat loadings at different circuits etc all have a HUGE effect on a sensitive tyres performance.

From personal experience we had issues with the "soft" version of a tyre we were using going off far to quickly when others were not having the same issues.

We went through all the usual suspects of pressures, camber, caster, ambient and track temperatures, throttle mapping, diff ratio's, track surface etc etc. Eyes almost gave out looking at telemetry!!

Finally turned out to be brake heat was cooking off the tyres as we did not have enough ducting at that particular track. The brakes were getting hotter and staying hotter longer cooking off the tyres. We found it through looking at the tyre pressures which increasing more than usual so we had lower starting pressures.

Added some duct work, went back to mormal pressures and the tyre came back to us. Was certainly not the first thing we looked at but required a little thinking outside the normal to find it...

[FW17]

Strad, are you saying that there were no marbles during the bridgestone era?

Williams, Not at all, but it has certainly been exacerbated by the FIAs desire to have quickly degrading tires.
As for myself, I would be rid of all these farcical mechanisms designed to enhance the show.
I guess it could happen, if I live long enough, but I doubt I will ever look back on these as the good old days.
By the way,
This is a lot of heated discussion over a rumour. I'm sure Jean Todt would like it but it might not be that easy.

Certainly do not like the idea that the shorter tyre life being introduced for the purpose of "show". Hate that word used in F1.
But since the tyre is the same for all of them it is up to drivers and teams to make the best use of them. Hence I do not subscribe to the pirelli lottery.

Personally I would improve the tyre situation by simply allowing teams to use the 2 compound allowed which ever way they want (front prime rear option or 3 primes one option etc.).

I am a big fan of Michelin, would love to see them back and the new tyre war.

[bhall]

[...]

If you think the current Pirelli's are such a joke, then surely you woudl support simply mandating a tyre that lasts the entire race distance and has a definable performance drop off over its life. Or how about mandating pit stops within a predetermined lap window to retain the pit stop work part of the equation and keep tyre performance out of it all together.

[...]

Previously teams never had to think about it as the Bridgestones were too durable and effectively took tyre strategy out of the equation, allowing a huge comparative advantage to established teams that had resources to optimise them coupled with years of optimisation work. The Pirelli's have removed this and evened out field to my mind.

[...]

I have had conversations surrounding the Renault engines effect on tyre performance. It is known to be down on power and likely has a better torque profile as well. This it is undoubtedly helping Lotus and Red Bull preserve their rear tyres giving them a performance advantage whereas the Mercedes and Ferrari engines aggressive torque delivery chew them up.

I've trimmed this down to something a bit more manageable.

It's fallacy to assume that one would want to mandate anything at all simply because they don't like the brand of racing supplied by Pirelli tires. I read your statement to mean that you believe certain aspects to racing should always be a part of racing, even if they have to be propped up by novelties that others might consider artificial.

It should also be noted that the move to a single tire supplier was instituted precisely to de-emphasize the role of tires in F1. In that regard, Bridgestone's control tires were a phenomenal success.

And is it fair for teams to be hampered by new tires that don't respond well to their old, regulation-frozen engines?

This is all preference, one way or another. Some like it; others don't. But, there's absolutely no objective evidence to support either view.

I see the Pirelli tires as being a return to the dynamics of a tire war without, you know, the tire war. I'd much rather see performance differentiation as the result of two companies slugging it out to make the best racing product, rather than as the result of one company deciding it knows best how to the supply the "exciting" racing teams and fans have demanded.

[FW17]

I see the Pirelli tires as being a return to the dynamics of a tire war without, you know, the tire war. I'd much rather see performance differentiation as the result of two companies slugging it out to make the best racing product, rather than as the result of one company deciding it knows best how to the supply the "exciting" racing teams and fans have demanded.

You think if we bolt the bridgestone tyres then we will have a different season? Bridgestone fronts were weak, massa, shumi were all crying, and felt perelli fronts were better but the rear was not so good. Then came the EBD of last year which kept the rear planted. EBD gone this year and all teams having trouble with the rears, so what is new?

Nobody will be talking tyres if the drivers stop whining.

[bhall]

Schumacher never raced on the Bridgestone control tire, and Massa was quite happy with them until the front tires were made more narrow.

EDIT: I forgot about 2010. So, yes, Schumacher did race on the control tires, but I imagine he'd have been fine with them as long as the front tires were the same size as those pre-2010.