WhiteBlue wrote:iotar__ wrote:WhiteBlue wrote:It depends what you ask the tyre supplier to do. If they continue to ask for very small operating windows and very specific properties that will support a certain entertainment concept it may be asking too much. F1 needs to accept a robust tyre with a wide operating window and maybe one stop only. That is not a fundamental problem when you expect a lot of excitement from the shake up. But typically F1 manages to shoot itself in the foot and why should that change next year.
Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.
I would say you are wrong on all accounts if you weren't contradicting yourself. ...
I'm not contradicting myself. You are not thinking it through or you are unaware what has happened. When Pirelli came into F1 in 2010 for 2011 we had no passing and processional races. Pirelli were asked to supply fragile tyres that would lead to multiple pit stops and force teams to qualify on a fragile higher performance tyre. They liked the idea because the necessary suspension adaptation development would lead to a lot of tyre talk. Michelin kind of missed that opportunity or they did not think about it. By accepting the fragile tyre concept Pirelli got themselves into the situation that they need very accurate data in order to successfully design the small operating windows. So much for the history.
Now we have a different situation. Michelin have found some interest because they realized that Pirelli's concept of fragile tyres worked for them. Pirelli generated huge attention over three years, which is the objective in the first place. The difference between 2010 and 2014 is the availability of DRS and the new engine formula. In 2010 nobody knew how DRS would work and so a fragile tyre with different race/quali strategy options and pit stops to shake up positions made sense. Today we do not need the fragile tyres for entertainment because DRS is doing a good job to prevent processional races anywhere except Monaco. Next year there is also no need to present teams with a new development challenge because they have plenty of that on their plate with the new engines. So from a team or from a fan perspective the fragile tyre are not needed for next year. But that is not true for Pirelli. They continue to depend on tyres to be talked much about which they will not get if they design a conservative tyre with huge operating window. So it is primarily the commercial and PR interest of the tyre supplier that forces him into a concept that otherwise has over lived it's usefulness.
Ugh, thanks at least for not quoting anything from my post, it goes well with a reply that doesn't relate to it and still makes little sense.
1. You WERE contradicting yourself. Firstly claiming that Pirelli are doing what they are asked and then claiming, and I quote:
Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.
This is patently untrue because firstly Pirelli (or any company for that matter) is not seeking this kind of publicity and they are not the ones creating this kind of publicity. Since it turned into repeating the same thing exercise I'll save myself typing and quote myself like an idiot:
PR noise about the tyres is created solely by the teams (usually Red Bull) to excuse results, hide incompetence and force changes that suit their design. It's not about care for the sport but competitive advantage. To suggest that such publicity like in the beginning of the last two seasons or the one related to Mercedes test is sought after by any company in the world is insane. To use an analogy, it's like saying that if Red Bull is in F1 for marketing reasons than Silverstone 2010 that resulted in slogans like "Red Bull gives you someone else's wings" was good for their brand image. Or Turkey crash, or Malaysia 2013 win stealing. Following your logic they would continue to repeat it, in the end it did create a lot of PR attention. Only the wrong kind of attention.
Now tell me if Red Bull's strategy of drawing attention WORKED for them like you insist it worked for Pirelli and if they had continued in that direction? F1 may have worked for Pirelli but instead not because of PR attention you're talking about. Negative one created by dishonest teams.
Of course they are seeking publicity but a positive one, tyres as an element of more interesting formula 1. But since they've learned the hard way that providing tyres accurate to demand will cause problems for some teams and create negative attention they'll be willing to compromise. I'm stressing again: it's not tyre manufacturer that's creating tyre policy. It's teams, Ecclestone and FIA. To be fair and as mentioned before, company's involvement may depend on the role of tyres or on the type of deal (two competing manufacturer's or one) but that's about it.
This whole long-winded conjecture about their role in the process and then Michelin part.
"Michelin have found some interest because they realized that Pirelli's concept of fragile tyres worked for them." It's pure speculation and another contradiction: if Michelin would be willing to provide "fragile" tyres as you call them, based on Pirelli's PR "attention success" than Pirelli's involvement ends here. Another competitor can step and fill their role if they don't co-operate. Leaving financial aspect aside.
About DRS: How is DRS important in any of this? It's not, except for diluting and muddying the subject towards "entertainment" part. And which kind of DRS you're talking about two zones and limited in qualifying in 2013 or unlimited in qualifying and usually one zone in 2011/12. Quite different, wouldn't you agree? I've heard opposite arguments: DRS is not needed because tyres create enough pace difference and overtaking.
How about that for mixing these separate issues?
