So the problem is that if they produce what is good for the show, that is, softs that go away in 5-10 laps, hards that will do 50-100% of the distance, all teams talk of the softs falling apart and it looks like if Pirelli cannot make lasting tires.
Well, that's not a problem of the tires and neither a problem of the teams complaining, but a problem created by a rule that was introduced on Bridgestone's request. AFAIK Bridgestone requested that using the two types of tires be mandatory, so people would talk about them.
Now let's rewrite that rule: there will be two compounds available for the race, and the teams are free to use whichever numbers (from the weekend's allocation) and combinations they like. Keep the current number of tires for the weekend, and bring two compounds well far apart, one to last about 8 laps, the other to last about 50.
If the softs fall apart too quickly, the teams gambling on a whole race on hards will win, and the winner will have done it because of the tires. If the softs perform well and dominate, the team winning the race will have done it by using 4 sets of softs, and talk about that blindingly fast tire. If they are about level, the winner might well be the car to make 50 laps with the hards, pit for softs before the SC 10 laps from the end, and duck ahead of everybody else either in the pits or the track. And they will talk of the right blend of durability and speed.
Some teams would get it right, some wrong, and it would be different teams and different tires in each race, but in each race, the winner would have been the one getting the tire calls right, and the losers the ones getting it wrong. Let the losers moan about those cement hards the winners won't complain. I guess the talk would be all about tires and mostly positive.
It is only because when one compound proves to be either too soft or too hard the teams are still forced to use it that it becomes a PR problem.
So I say, keep on bringing two tires to each race, remove the mandatory compound change rule, and it will be in Pirelli's best interest to make sure the compounds are marginal in performance.
Result: good PR, and good show on track.
1) The 2009 Goodyear/ Nascar debacle @ Indy where tires last as little as 6 laps.
Moral: Pirelli's aggressive strategy runs the risk of ruining the show as badly as an overly-conservative strategy. I personally would prefer to see ranges of 15laps to 25laps per set of tyres.
2) The more pit stops in a race, the higher the probability of "passing in the pits" statistically. It will therefore become a strategic manouvre. The "bring back the old F1" pundits will not like this. I personally enjoy watching drivers set hot lap after hot lap in the quest of a strategic move, but will concede that on-track passes can be more exciting to most viewers.
3) More aggressive tyres generally give off more marbles. If this turns out to be the case with the Pirellis, the aforementioned pundits will cry again. I personally think "sweeper vanes" or "low-slung side-exit exhausts" should be mandated for all cars to help sweep the tracks during the race.
4) More tyres generally cost more money (tyres, maintenance & heating). The "cost saving" pundits will likely overlook this initially (since tyres are considered part of the inevitable costs of racing), but at some point it will be brought up.
I am in agreement with an aggressive tire offering for next year. With the margins between the cars getting ever closer and closer, increasing the trips to the pit lane would have probably a larger effect on race outcome than anything else.
Though it doesn't solve the problem of race leaders being for the most part uncontested past the first lap, I think this would at least add a dimension lost from past years back into races. Look at Montreal this year after all. That race was fantastic.
hollus wrote:Now let's rewrite that rule: there will be two compounds available for the race, and the teams are free to use whichever numbers (from the weekend's allocation) and combinations they like. Keep the current number of tires for the weekend, and bring two compounds well far apart, one to last about 8 laps, the other to last about 50.
Result: good PR, and good show on track.
I disagree - if the softs went away after only 8 laps, they would have to be 3-4 seconds per lap quicker, or you might as well just stay on hards.
Result: everyone on 1 set of hard tyres the whole race, no daring overtakes (2005-style, everyone was afraid of getting flatspots).
It would be nice if Pirelli could make a tire that can last as long as the current tires, but their performance drops off like an anvil off a cliff.
A soft tire that can get maximum performance for about 10-15 laps then start dropping off ultimately lasting about 25 laps before grip decreases dramatically. Then a hard tire that has less grip but is more consistent performance, let's say it lasts 25 laps with the same performance before it starts dropping off.
Given how much development work Pirelli has to do to restart a F1 program, given their race tire manufacturing facilities, and how much time they have had to do it... I'm sure they'll be thrilled if they bring tires that barely meet the performance and durability requirements of the series. Much less debating specifics of "tuning" falloff and grip and all this crap.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
well pirelli opened a massive new motorsport production facility in turkey 3 years ago and have withdrawn from other series to enter F1 , so I can't see that capacity is going to be a problem
and they have already said that if the teams want the sort of durable tyres that they currently have , it would be easy for them to achieve ; but the more aggressive tyres currently being discussed will be harder to tune , not surprising perhaps
we shall see !
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
so what did ..given their race tyre manufacturing facilities ..mean ?
they now have the worlds most modern facility , with the most modern equipment ; presumably this is why they were able to bid for the F1 contract by withdrawing from WRC
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
Stock Car Brazil was on Pirelli recently, presumably the tires were made at that new facility of theirs. That series is not on Pirelli anymore. There's a reason for that.
Doesn't matter how new or fancy the factory is.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Jersey Tom wrote:Stock Car Brazil was on Pirelli recently, presumably the tires were made at that new facility of theirs. That series is not on Pirelli anymore. There's a reason for that.
Doesn't matter how new or fancy the factory is.
Stock Car Brazil Pirelli tyres were manufactured in Brazil facility. They used the same 285-645-R18 tyres than TC2000 here in Argentina. TC2000 will be using those same tyres till 2013 at least and they will be produced in Brazil, too.
That leads me to think Pirelli droped Stock Car for other reasons than production capability because entering F1
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
Interesting. In any event.. just because a facility is new doesn't mean the product will be good. Also, just because a factory is old doesn't mean the product is bad.
I just think it's a daunting task for Pirelli to be able to really complete their design cycle in the allotted time. It took Bridgestone a few years of both "hidden" and open development to have a tire that was acceptable and competitive to Goodyear, in the late 90's.
Must suck for the teams as well, probably well into the design cycle for the 2011 chassis without hard data to go off.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
