Pirelli 2013

[bhall]

[...]
Limiting the cars from exploiting there potential so that it looks good for TV is not what F1 is about.
[...]

The tires do not in any way limit drivers or teams from exploiting their car's potential, because making effective use of the tires is intrinsically linked to a car's potential. That will always be the case until the time comes when tires are somehow no longer needed to race.

Put another way: teams who feel their cars are being held back by the characteristics of the tires have flawed cars. Otherwise, F1 has many, many, many, many limitations.

[...]
The issue with 2013 issue was that it was not a comfortable 4 stopper for all teams; Lotus comfy 3, Ferrari comfy 4 but remaining 3 probably needed 5 to be have been comfortable.

Exactly. And those other teams need to step up their game, because, as you've just pointed out, it is possible to use the tires effectively. (F1 is definitely not about making teams "comfortable.")

Generally speaking, I think people should just say they don't like the tires due to the brand of racing they produce and leave it at that. It's the only argument against them that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny, because these tires are fair in every other aspect. I hate 'em with a passion, but there's really nothing to say beyond that.

[Ferrari2183]

The biggest flaw of all is actually they aren't simulating Canada 2010 at all. The many pitstops there were a consequence of cold weather conditions and a very green track. The tyres could not heat up properly and grained to oblivion. Drivers actually had to push very hard to get some heat into the tyres.

The tyres we have nowadays aren't graining; they simple degrade. The more you push, the hotter they get and the more they degrade. Instead of being "under the window", they are "above the window".

Tyre management has always been a part of racing, that is true. The question is: do we want that in F1? It isn't exciting to see drivers "coast and lift", not at all. If you want to have a better show, these things need to be taken into consideration. Nobody would have complained about Barcelona if things went like 2011: a 4 stop show where the top 5 actually pushed during each of their 5 stints. I rewatched that race; absolutely not a single complaint about tyres. The only one who was having problems with his tyres was Alonso during his last stint. People have been very eager to point out that the 2011 race also had 4 stops, telling everybody what a short memory the fans have. Well, the ones pointing at it apperently have the exact same problem.

I'm confused. The total race times of the 2011 and 2013 winners were almost identical... So how is it that they pushed in 2011 and coasted in 2013?

The qualifying times as well as the race lap times are roughly the same too which leads me to believe that the cars are of similar pace.

I do understand that not all teams could do a comfortable 4 stopper as Ferrari did but that is the problem of those teams not Pirelli (just as it was Ferrari's fault in previous years for their inability to generate the necessary tyre temps).

Also, it is worth considering that Ferrari were about the only team that intended to do a 4 stop from the get go. Red Bull were caught napping and switched a third of the race through by which time it was way too late to do anything.

Now that the FIA have stepped in and said, hold on, fix the current specification with regard to the delaminations. We will not tolerate a change to 2012 specification and changes aimed at reducing the amount of pit stops or the tyres degradation curve, I think teams will now start using the more aggressive quick burst faster pace strategy even if it means stopping more.

[turbof1]

I'm confused. The total race times of the 2011 and 2013 winners were almost identical... So how is it that they pushed in 2011 and coasted in 2013?

I think that in 2011 the peak performance of the tyres was less then now, but they wear off much more gradually (until the famous cliff). Nowadays you can get much performance out of the tyres over one lap or a handful of laps, but if you push the tyres you'll degrade them at an alarming pace. Drivers have to hold back the extra performance to keep the tyres alive.

The qualifying times as well as the race lap times are roughly the same too which leads me to believe that the cars are of similar pace.

The cars themselves are slower nowadays, especially through the low speed corners. They don't have the off-throttle blowing anymore, and the injection of exhaust fumes in the diffuser is also less. They made up ground this year, but not all. One should also not forget that last year they still had unlimited DRS during qualy.

Exactly. And those other teams need to step up their game, because, as you've just pointed out, it is possible to use the tires effectively. (F1 is definitely not about making teams "comfortable.")

Actually, the competition alone is more then enough to make it "not comfortable". I don't think the tail teams would be more comfortable with better tyres, or that Ferrari and Lotus would be comfortable. McLaren would be uncomfortable anyhow due their all-stalling car and Red Bull would find them in a uncomfortable situation when they found out all the crap dear mr. Helmut Marko told us about that their car would be so much faster with better tyres, isn't true after all. In short, I don't think teams will ever be comfortable, regardless of the tyres.

It's quite the dilemma. On the one hand you can point at ferrari and lotus and applaud them for showing the other teams how it is doen. On the other hand, 9 out 11 teams hitting the nail less or completely not, that's a bit too much for coincidence, especially because they sometimes suddenly get equally as much performance out of it as Lotus/Ferrari (Red Bull in Bahrain).

[Pierce89]

the FIA step in to apply the rules !!!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107487


quite right too !

With the kindest will in the world, the 'wrong' team has been winning for 3 years now. Time for 'the show' to get a change of scenery.

WDC & WCC tied up before the end of European season. No calls of 'boring' though because the winners will be in red, not blue.

Do you really believe the crap you post?

[strad]

I don't care so much about the number of stops as when the drivers say "I can't drive any slower".

[ecapox]

I think that was an exaggeration. He could have gone slower. And they could have built a car that didn't chew through its tires like a fat boy through ribs.

[strad]

And it still wouldn't be racing,,,Talk like that shouldn't even be in a racers lexicon

[Cam]

And it still wouldn't be racing,,,Talk like that shouldn't even be in a racers lexicon

Unfortunately strad, they are no longer racers. Simply 'reality stars' in the F1 show, with outcomes determined at production meetings weighted with viewer ratings figures in hand.

[Huntresa]

I don't care so much about the number of stops as when the drivers say "I can't drive any slower".

Hamilton would prob have said the same thing on the hard bridgestone tyres in this car, cause its the car for Merc not the actual tyres.

[Pierce89]

And it still wouldn't be racing,,,Talk like that shouldn't even be in a racers lexicon

Unfortunately strad, they are no longer racers. Simply 'reality stars' in the F1 show, with outcomes determined at production meetings weighted with viewer ratings figures in hand.

And I thought I was cynical. Actually if that was the truth, I'm sure the producers would figure out a way to cut off "the finger". Now, that would bring ratings Do I understand you correctly that all Red Bull wins are well earned but Ferrari wins are decided by the producers?

[Cam]

lol. No. RedBull had their fair share of Bernie goodness along the way I'm sure. With all the politics we have now, and crucial big money sponsors, nothing can be 'purely earned'. I can look past it, when its not so bleeding obvious.

[godlameroso]

I think that in 2011 the peak performance of the tyres was less then now, but they wear off much more gradually (until the famous cliff). Nowadays you can get much performance out of the tyres over one lap or a handful of laps, but if you push the tyres you'll degrade them at an alarming pace. Drivers have to hold back the extra performance to keep the tyres alive.

2011 Spain vs 2013 Spain the race was completed in 2011 a whole 16 seconds faster than this year's race. That's not a lot especially since Alonso wasn't trying to push to the end like Vettel was in 2011. Also his fastest lap was still faster than 2011's fastest lap, in fact fastest lap of the race was an easy half second faster than the fastest race lap in 2011.

Personally I don't mind the tires degrading as they are now, if they degrade a little slower it would be fine as well. Rapidly degrading tires take a lot of skill to drive fast on because the balance of the car is radically changing during a stint, so a driver has to dig deep to maintain a somewhat consistent pace. It takes a different type of driving.

The cars don't have the extreme blown diffusers of 2011, yet the cars are still qualifying slightly faster than in 2011 it could be the tires or it could be that teams have made advances in areas other than blowing the diffuser.

[turbof1]

2011 Spain vs 2013 Spain the race was completed in 2011 a whole 16 seconds faster than this year's race. That's not a lot especially since Alonso wasn't trying to push to the end like Vettel was in 2011. Also his fastest lap was still faster than 2011's fastest lap, in fact fastest lap of the race was an easy half second faster than the fastest race lap in 2011.

That is the same argument Ferrari2183 brought (and the piece you quoted from me was actually my answer to that).

It isn't as simple as comparing laptimes and total race times, because not only have the tyres changed, so did the cars. Track conditions also play a part into it, although more on qualifying day.

Ultimately, it is a question of car performance, tyre performance, and the need for tyre management (or tyre longevity). Other factors also play a role, but to keep things simple I propose the following model:

race performance= (car performance+tyre performance)*tyre longevity

Lets assume, because we opted for a simple model, that race performance determines the total race time. Also let's take for tyre longevity a number between 0 and 1; 0 meaning tyres get destroyed right away, while 1 means able to fully use the performance all race long.

Let's assume the following numbers for 2011; don't pin too much down on what the numbers really hold, just follow the thought pattern:
-car performance=20
-tyre performance=10
-tyre longevity=0.9
So race performance is 27

Now let's assume the following numbers for 2013:
-car performance=18
-tyre performance=15
-tyre longevity=0.82
Race performance again is 27

As you can see, in both cases the race performance is the same, but the amount people are able to push is not. In the first case they can use 90% of the peak performance of their car, in the second case only 82%, yet they will be able to finish the race in the same timeline, ceteris paribus.

[Ferrari2183]

@turbof1

I think you're unnecessarily trying to complicate the situation.

Alonso's 2013 race lap times were similar to Vettel's 2011 laptimes and at times faster. The contention is that in 2011 you could push for longer while in 2013 you can't. I call bollocks because in stints of roughly equal length the race lap times were largely similar. Forget about peak tyre performance we are not comparing qualifying times.

Here are the average lap times per stint (stint length in brackets). Alonso 2013 on the left and Vettel 2011 on the right.

1 - 1:31.884 (9) 1:31.138 (9)
2 - 1:31.230 (12) 1:32.228 (9)
3 - 1:30.253 (15) 1:29.900 (16)
4 - 1:29.759 (13) 1:29.959 (14)
5 - 1:29.072 (17) 1:28.621 (18)

Below are the average lap times for the race.

1:30,251 1:30.050

So apart from the first 2 stints where traffic played a big part in both instances, the lap times on average are very comparable. Unless it is your contention that the 2013 cars are faster than the 2011 cars and are having to coast I can't see how Alonso pushed any less than Vettel did.

I do, though, accept that not everybody is able to extract the level of performance that Alonso did and, as a consequence, on track battles suffered but that is not Pirelli's problem. The onus is on those teams to get to that level.

[turbof1]

Here are the average lap times per stint (stint length in brackets). Alonso 2013 on the left and Vettel 2011 on the right.

That does not go against anything what I said. Of course at average the stints should be largely the same, else youj would never get to the a same total race time.
But here's one thing about averages: they remove any info about variances in the laptimes. It does not show how the laptimes evolve. It could very well be that laptimes in 2013 stints started much lower then the ones in 2011, but ended up much higher (and if not there's still a big case for driving delta times), still giving the same average. Averages don't give a picture at all how fast tyres go off, or how much drivers have to hold back.

There is also nothing complicated about what I said. The explanation above should be understandable to everyone and is imo logical sound. It fits with what we know about how the tyres evolved through the 3 years (they went softer).

Could by chance post the individual laptimes of both the drivers of a particular stint?