2025 Chinese Grand Prix [Shanghai] March 21-23

[Artur Craft]

The easiest way to remove 'luck factor' from F1 races :
1) pit lane closed during VSC.
2) pitlane closed under SC, but allow the lapped cars to go the rear of the queue, as it is today.
3) If someone has damage/puncture that can be addressed in the pitlane, allow them to pit under SC/VSC but they have to go to the back of the queue after repair ; won't be allowed to come out of the pitlane as they please.

That way, no one gets a 'free' pitstop. No need to do anything else.

I always thought like that too as I hate manufactured results but, sadly, most F1 fans love SC and artificial results to spice the races up

[Hoffman900]

Furthermore, the cars today are 200kg heavier, add fuel and it’s near 300kg, with about the same peak power as then. All because rules. That’s not the tires’ fault.

The tires absolutely were for Schumacher and the Ferrari. I even remember Max Mosley making a big stink about it.

The cars finish the race on light fuel, you know? Hamilton had fresh tyres and low fuel(like 2004) for his last stint and what was his pace? 3s slower than the 2004 race record. All that on a fresh tarmac which offers much more grip. The only advantage of the 2004 cars was the 200kg less weight. They had 900HP back them and now 1k, the difference in torque is even bigger. Cars are wider(wider track spreads the load more across both sides yielding more grip from the tyres. That alone was estimated by engineers to slow the 1998 cars by 1.5s cars compared to the 1997 ones). In 2004 they used slim grooved tyres that could be pushed to hell throughout all the stint, no management. Needless to mention the difference in downforce.....

It´s funny that you brought the bike comparison, I won´t talk about it because I don´t follow WSBK at all and only watch MotoGP for fun without focusing on technical details. But I can do some rough estimations for F1, if you will. The difference in weight from 600 to 800kg account for some 8s(some 0.4s per 10kg and it gets lower as the weight increases. From 800 to 810, for instance, it´s around 0.35s on an average track, IIRC). When, in 2009, we went from grooved to slicks (same width), Bridgestone said the gain was around 2.5s. The gap from a grooved slim tyre to a very wide slick one should be closer to 4s, at least. As I said, the 2m car track vs the 1.8m one account for some 1.5s. The aero and Power/Torque difference is quite harder to quantify but so far, accounting only for the other factors, 2004 should be just 2.5s faster. The actual gap is already greater than that I won´t factor in the new tarmac(which could impact on several seconds(remember the 3s improvement on Sepang on 2016?), because in 2004 they also had a new one, even if today´s might be better. With much more downforce and Power/Torque, these cars should be a bit faster, not almost 3s slower than 2004 as most of the ~8s weight gap is counterbalanced by wider track and much wider slicks.

These are just rough estimates, because as I´m not an insider, I can´t give you precise data but considering that 2 decades later Bridgestone(and everybody else) tyres evolved a lot, being seemingly much slower than a 2004 tyre is humiliating. For reference, from 2014 to 2015, Michelin made a big progress with their compounds bringing tyres ~2.5s faster for about the same durability(WEC). Obviously, this doesn´t happen often and it was a huge one-off step. Just shows tyre are ever evolving.

Finally(if you have survived the long read), if Pirelli is so damn good and so capable, why don´t they go face competition on SuperGT? Even Yokohama and Sumitomo are brave enough to face Bridgestone. Also, Hypercar has open tyres reg, just like LMP1s had. Why do you think no other supplier dares to battle Michelin there? I think even Bridgestone(which is great) have nightmares about the 2005 F1 season. Rebellion once tried Dunlop´s(which belongs to Goodyear) tailored made tyres for their LMP1 but soon went back to the generic tyre Michelin supplied them with(as Michelin focused on the big manufacturers and only made tailored tyres for them).

I would definitely love to see Pirelli displays their immense capability_ without the "tight restrictions that the FIA and F1 imposes to them"_ in a series like SuperGT or WEC so that they could show how great of a tyre they are able to produce with insane grip and infinite durability rubber that would need no management right to the end. I wonder why they don´t do that but rather love to hide on spec series without tyre competition

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

[TeamKoolGreen]

Carlos Sainz gets his first Williams points because of a Ferrari double disqualification. Alpine also gets a DSQ, the future Audi team is at the back. And the cursed second red Bull driver is in crisis. Carlos just might have made the right decision.

[michl420]

The easiest way to remove 'luck factor' from F1 races :
1) pit lane closed during VSC.
2) pitlane closed under SC, but allow the lapped cars to go the rear of the queue, as it is today.
3) If someone has damage/puncture that can be addressed in the pitlane, allow them to pit under SC/VSC but they have to go to the back of the queue after repair ; won't be allowed to come out of the pitlane as they please.

That way, no one gets a 'free' pitstop. No need to do anything else.

I always thought like that too as I hate manufactured results but, sadly, most F1 fans love SC and artificial results to spice the races up

Thats just the old red flag tire change debat. If a driver pits one lap before the SC he still is lucky.
Only solution would be only VSC and closed pit lane.

[BassVirolla]

The easiest way to remove 'luck factor' from F1 races :
1) pit lane closed during VSC.
2) pitlane closed under SC, but allow the lapped cars to go the rear of the queue, as it is today.
3) If someone has damage/puncture that can be addressed in the pitlane, allow them to pit under SC/VSC but they have to go to the back of the queue after repair ; won't be allowed to come out of the pitlane as they please.

That way, no one gets a 'free' pitstop. No need to do anything else.

I always thought like that too as I hate manufactured results but, sadly, most F1 fans love SC and artificial results to spice the races up

Thats just the old red flag tire change debat. If a driver pits one lap before the SC he still is lucky.
Only solution would be only VSC and closed pit lane.

This could lead for more pushing and undercuts attempts, because it's in your interest to pit before such a possible SC occurs.

Aggresive tire strategies & no pit under SC could lead to much improved racing. Well, it gave a win for Alonso in Singapore 2008.

[Gothrek]

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

[dren]

Boring race but glad Piastri won, good drive by Ocon. I dont think he was shown or mentioned once on Sky TV during the race

Very solid drive by Ocon. Good result for Haas.

[Hoffman900]

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

[Seanspeed]

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

Yep, visibility is the #1 factor making drivers complain about 'undriveable' conditions in wet weather these days.

There are also other aspects of these modern cars/rules that makes them troublesome in the wet as well. Very sensitive aero balance issues, super low ride heights, 1000hp high torque turbo/hybrid powertrain with no traction control, etc.

This is not on Pirelli.

[Hoffman900]

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

Yep, visibility is the #1 factor making drivers complain about 'undriveable' conditions in wet weather these days.

There are also other aspects of these modern cars/rules that makes them troublesome in the wet as well. Very sensitive aero balance issues, super low ride heights, 1000hp high torque turbo/hybrid powertrain with no traction control, etc.

This is not on Pirelli.

This is how it use to be (gets more wild as he gets more laps in). Drivers, teams, and fans today would find this lack of control unacceptable. I think it’s awesome, but that’s not how things are in 2025.

[Seanspeed]

This is how it use to be (gets more wild as he gets more laps in). Drivers, teams, and fans today would find this lack of control unacceptable. I think it’s awesome, but that’s not how things are in 2025.

Today's drivers would be fine if they had that same level of progressive, predictable and 'catchable' sliding that those cars back then did. But modern F1 cars are nothing like that.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

The pirelli wets are trash, it was shown that the 2016 pirelli full wets displaced less water than the 2010 Bridgestone INTERS. and the pirelli tires are 3x the mass now than the 2010 Bridgestones. Pirelli provide trash to F1, and it has nothing to do with the cars or the tire regs. Look at their records in tire wars, they are horrible.

[Gothrek]

Reading is hard, eh?

The performance of these cars has nothing to do with Pirelli and everything to do with the rules. Even down to the rules that are imposed on Pirelli to make a tire that wears, with cars that are 50% heavier, make more downforce, and all with near zero amount of on track testing.

Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, etc would have all the same problems. All issues are because rules and what the sanctioning body imposes on the tire manufactuer.

How this is a hard concept to grasp is beyond my ability to reason with you.

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

Yeah - cars struggling to stay on track behind the safety car is supernormal: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... te-to-end/

[Hoffman900]

If Pirelli is so great according to you, then why have they not able to create 1 decent full wet tire in all these years? Nobody wants to use them, pilots saying it is even dangerous. When Pirelli launched their tires back then, the cars became 1s slower per lap, because they just cannot create anything decent. So easy to blame FIA or anyone else on the "restrictions" they have gotten. So far they have not showed an ounce of decent engineering capability in my opinion.

No one said the tire is dangerous, it’s just the conditions they use them in, there is too much spray, and that’s due to the rule set that wants air to be thrown high, so the wake / turbulent effect is less, thus enabling cars to run closer together.


It’s really simple. The better a wet tire works, the more water it displaces. The more water it displaces, the more water is thrown off the track.

The entire point of the current aero rule set was to have air thrown high behind the car, higher than a trailing vehicle height, which allows cars to run closer together. In wet conditions, it also throws a lot of water into the air.

Yeah - cars struggling to stay on track behind the safety car is supernormal: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... te-to-end/

Are you new to racing?

People crash on the pace laps in the dry too, and have forever.

I also stand behind none of today’s drivers would ever step foot into that video I linked earlier and if they did, they’d be all over the media talking about how bad things are.

[basti313]

I always thought like that too as I hate manufactured results but, sadly, most F1 fans love SC and artificial results to spice the races up

Thats just the old red flag tire change debat. If a driver pits one lap before the SC he still is lucky.
Only solution would be only VSC and closed pit lane.

This could lead for more pushing and undercuts attempts, because it's in your interest to pit before such a possible SC occurs.

Aggresive tire strategies & no pit under SC could lead to much improved racing. Well, it gave a win for Alonso in Singapore 2008.

Funny posts. You are even giving one of the nice examples....
Pit land closing was tried in every racing series. Never produced anything good. Just unrealistic strategies that usually end up in last place, unpredictable results and constructed wins.