I did not trim but did cut this up to make something a bit more manageable to answer your accusations and questions.
bhallg2k wrote: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.
Firstly, you cannot possibly deem this a fallacy with a straight face (or the online equivalent thereof).
This is at best
ABSOLUTELY only your very subjective and personal opinion and not something you or anyone else could deem a fallacy! How can you possibly speak for anyone else or everyone else. So it is simply your opinion which you are absolutely entitled too.
It can only be your subjective opinion, as you cannot possibly say that no one would want to mandate anything simply because they don’t like the brand of racing. You cannot speak to others wants, likes or dislikes, only your own and those that are disclosed to you.
Secondly, my comment would not be a fallacy, it would be only an observation, be it incorrect, misguided or otherwise.
Regardless of all this, the history of F1 is full of differing mandates that were implemented not through logical reasoning, but simply and completely due to a particular individuals, group or single companies likes, dislikes and vested interests.
To try and argue this is not the case would absolutely be an exercise in folly as there are reams of documentary evidence to prove this has happened in the distant and not so distant past.
Regardless, my opinion which I am entitled to is in absolute opposition to yours in so much as given past precedents, having something mandated because a particular person does or does not like it (despite logical reasoning) can and has happened and will happen again. Its human nature and self interests that win out.
bhallg2k wrote: 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.
Then unfortunately you have read it wrong. Yes certain aspects of racing should always be part of racing, predominately the technicality of it. If you are referring to “artificial” items like DRS, then I think they are a means to an ends. Not totally undesirable but certainly not part of racing pure and I personally would rather it wasn’t used. However, items like sensitive tyre compounds is in my opinion not artificial and only adds to the absolutely technicality of the formula as you are required to build and work with the tyres, not just have something that is eventually a zero variable.
I read from your comment that you believe certain aspects to racing should always be a part of racing and nothing should ever interfere with those basic principals regardless of innovation or evolution as you are what is most commonly described as a racing purist, wanting only racing in its purist from.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where commercial concerns, costs and other considerations can be ignored. In a class such as F1 that is governed by rules, regulations and spending controls, then pure racing is never going to be the end result. When the regulations become so singular in their technicality (as F1's have become) the eventual end result will most commonly be a working to the same solution. Look at how aero has come to define F1 after engine technical regulations were tightened. The end result is everyone is working toward the most efficient package permissible under the regulations, so they will given enough time all end up with a variation on the same theme and theories. It is only when things are challenged and “artificial” devices used that the equilibrium can be upset.
Either way, this view is totally subjective as you indicated. KERS is a useful item for the commerciality of the sport as well as for technical innovation. DRS is not a purist innovation and is purely a result of the aero dominance in the rules which some feel required steps for commercial reasons.
I personally think that sensitive tyre compounds adds to the technicality of the class, other may not. In the end it is what it is and open to an individuals subjective opinion.
bhallg2k wrote: 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.
I again 100% disagree with you. The single supplier was not to "de-emphasise" the effects of the tyres, it was initiated as a cost saving measure to remove the huge dollar investments required that was a result of an “arms race” between the have and have not’s that F1 and the teams funded. As is typical with F1 it was a decision motivated by $$$'s and the commercial concerns for the sport.
So what resulted was that the tyres were marginalised by a single supplier as they provided a tyre that removed any requirements from the teams to consider them in the setup and design of the car. In my opinion, Bridestone did F1 a HUGE dis-service with their tyre production as they were not suitable for a category that mandates tyre changes and ultimate performance. They were extremely long wearing and stabile over their performance envelope. Where then does this add to the technicality of the class when you don’t have to consider degradation, performance, longevity or strategy? If tyres are to be considered then make them something worth considering.
Other categories I have raced in mandate a high wearing "soft" tyre for exactly this reason. It makes the technical "doing" of racing much harder as you need to consider a greatly increased number of variables.
bhallg2k wrote: And is it fair for teams to be hampered by new tires that don't respond well to their old, regulation-frozen engines?
Yes, absolutely it is in my opinion. The teams are not “hampered” in anyway. They are able to perform certain “changes and upgrades” to the engines under the guise of increasing longevity. So in actuality, they are not frozen, simply incompletely thawed. Renault has managed to change the engine and mapping to suit the tyres. Ferrari seem to have got a handle on it. Mercedes AMG unfortunately seem to be still thinking of they are developing Ilmor Indy car engines and C63 Black Series engines for those that want the big loud shouty car. Despite what you read or believe, there is a great deal of flexibility for the engine providers, as long as the basic architecture remains in place.
Proof positive is the engine mapping that the FIA tried to pull Red Bull up for in Germany that reduced mid range torque which was post review deemed totally legal under the current rules.
bhallg2k wrote: 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.
It is absolutely personal preference. What does exist is a raft of evidence that is either subjective, coloured by personal preference as you rightly indicated or anecdotal. This is certainly not an absence of evidence. Anyone could try and argue either view with the evidence available however it will always be overridden by an individual’s subjective and very personal opinion as you are talking about what someone does and does not like. And that is as individual and subjective as it gets.
You could argue that there is some possibly objective evidence in the race results and current performances of the teams.
However this could be deemed by individuals as subjective to their point of view.
If one was want to argue they prefer the previous type of racing where the same established teams were virtually a fait accompli to win barring unforeseen events and acts of divine intervention it can be skewed that way.
On the other hand, if could argue the current results such as wins, podiums, fastest laps both during the race and the final fastest lap all point to the teams underestimating the effect of the tyres and slowly appreciating the effects on the cars and how to best adapt to them. Unfortunately you can argue this either way based on a subjective point of view but it does not remove the materiality of the results.
bhallg2k wrote: 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.
Again I think we will have to agree to disagree. IAs far as I can see there is certainly no tyre war as everyone gets the same tyres so the battlefield is level and very quiet. There is no arms race, no spiralling costs to develop the next latest, greatest compound to trump a competitor nor is there the situation of the have and have not’s between those running on the current quickest tyre and those on the also ran second tier product.
What we have is ONE manufacturer (Pirelli) producing a MANDATED (by the FIA) set of compounds that are the SAME for ALL teams (everyone gets the same tyres and same compounds) regardless of anything else. There is no de facto tyre war and certainly not the costs associated with one.
What we are definitely seeing currently is a technical evolution to a changed environment as teams adapt via innovation in developing the cars as a holistic package around a MANDATED set of tyre compounds that were requested to give disparity between their operation rather than have ultimate longevity as their primary characteristic.
Some teams have adapted and have learnt to fly. Others like Ferrari, Sauber, Lotus and Red Bull have evolved their packages around the new environment. Mercedes, McLaren & Williams are simply slower to adapt and evolve and as a result are still learning to fly. Of these it would seem McLaren have finally got a handle on things to some degree given their showing at Hockenheim.
Never approach a Bull from the front, a Horse from the back, or an Idiot from any direction
