Pirelli 2013

[turbof1]

Red Bull are on top of it, they just cruise around as does everybody else. In some races they can cruise faster than the others, at other races teams can cruise faster than them.

The underlying theme is that there is no racing, merely finding a speed you can consistently cruise at to save tyre life. Should you come across traffic on your Sunday afternoon cruise, don't do anything silly like try and overtake them and take life from the tyre unless they open the door for you.

As Hembery says, this could all go away and we could have races rather than drives, but then Red Bull would win. And 'we' don't want that.

The unspoken truth is that with the current situation, Alonso should be sitting on 125 points. That is seen as less of a travesty though than Vettel on 125 points. We don't mind processional domination, just as long as its Ferrari rather than those toerag upstarts at Red Bull.

Then we should ask ourselves the question: in a racing series that has competition and racecraft as banner, is it fair to restrain a team clearly better then the others?

It's also we don't know if it is true in the first place. It is safe to say the others also have pace hidden behind the tyres. The only thing that must have come near ultimate pace is qualifying; they don't exactly dominate there (they are among the fastest though).

I'm not against tyres that wear out quickly btw. It's more the way they wear out. The focus should be on making tyres that wear out independent of how hard you push them, independent of the circuit and independent of small environmental changes (like temperature). The emphasis should clearly be on strategy (what is the option/prime ratio I should use?), not tyre management. Nobody would have made a fus about 4 stops if the drivers were able to push 95% during all 5 stints.

One last remark: the whole concept pirelli is basing itself on is canada 2010. They were asked to make tyres that produced such races. Fact is that tyres were coming off regardless of how hard you pushed them. They simply grained to oblivion. We had an awesome race because there was no point driving at 80%. They were going to grain anyway. If that was the concept pirelli started with in 2011, and nowadays their concept is restraining RBR no matter what the consequences are, then I jave serious questions why they are in the sport.

[VIZSLA]

Red Bull are on top of it, they just cruise around as does everybody else. In some races they can cruise faster than the others, at other races teams can cruise faster than them.

The underlying theme is that there is no racing, merely finding a speed you can consistently cruise at to save tyre life. Should you come across traffic on your Sunday afternoon cruise, don't do anything silly like try and overtake them and take life from the tyre unless they open the door for you.

As Hembery says, this could all go away and we could have races rather than drives, but then Red Bull would win. And 'we' don't want that.

The unspoken truth is that with the current situation, Alonso should be sitting on 125 points. That is seen as less of a travesty though than Vettel on 125 points. We don't mind processional domination, just as long as its Ferrari rather than those toerag upstarts at Red Bull.

Then we should ask ourselves the question: in a racing series that has competition and racecraft as banner, is it fair to restrain a team clearly better then the others?

It's also we don't know if it is true in the first place. It is safe to say the others also have pace hidden behind the tyres. The only thing that must have come near ultimate pace is qualifying; they don't exactly dominate there (they are among the fastest though).

I'm not against tyres that wear out quickly btw. It's more the way they wear out. The focus should be on making tyres that wear out independent of how hard you push them, independent of the circuit and independent of small environmental changes (like temperature). The emphasis should clearly be on strategy (what is the option/prime ratio I should use?), not tyre management. Nobody would have made a fus about 4 stops if the drivers were able to push 95% during all 5 stints.

Well said.
If randomness were a sporting virtue Roulette would be an Olympic sport.

[Richard]

I agree... BUT Senna was nursing those tyres because he wanted to do that. Now a days, even 4 stoppers are being told not to defend, hold back etc. Yesterday in 2nd stint, when both Alonso and Vettel passed Rosberg, Vettel was told by his engineer not to chase Alonso. This is just not good.

What's the difference? Senna was told by his engineers to go slow to save fuel and tyres.

[Jonnycraig]

The unspoken truth is that with the current situation, Alonso should be sitting on 125 points. That is seen as less of a travesty though than Vettel on 125 points. We don't mind processional domination, just as long as its Ferrari rather than those toerag upstarts at Red Bull.

How you get that is beyond my comprehension.

What is there to comprehend? Without changes to the tyres and presuming Alonso doesn't drive into anyone else he'll have the WDC wrapped up before the flyaways. With changes, Vettel will have the WDC wrapped up before the flyaways. We apparently shouldn't change to tyres to avoid RB domination, but nobody believes we should change the tyres to avoid Ferrari domination.

Red Bull are on top of it, they just cruise around as does everybody else. In some races they can cruise faster than the others, at other races teams can cruise faster than them.

The underlying theme is that there is no racing, merely finding a speed you can consistently cruise at to save tyre life. Should you come across traffic on your Sunday afternoon cruise, don't do anything silly like try and overtake them and take life from the tyre unless they open the door for you.

As Hembery says, this could all go away and we could have races rather than drives, but then Red Bull would win. And 'we' don't want that.

The unspoken truth is that with the current situation, Alonso should be sitting on 125 points. That is seen as less of a travesty though than Vettel on 125 points. We don't mind processional domination, just as long as its Ferrari rather than those toerag upstarts at Red Bull.

Then we should ask ourselves the question: in a racing series that has competition and racecraft as banner, is it fair to restrain a team clearly better then the others?

It's also we don't know if it is true in the first place. It is safe to say the others also have pace hidden behind the tyres. The only thing that must have come near ultimate pace is qualifying; they don't exactly dominate there (they are among the fastest though).

I'm not against tyres that wear out quickly btw. It's more the way they wear out. The focus should be on making tyres that wear out independent of how hard you push them, independent of the circuit and independent of small environmental changes (like temperature). The emphasis should clearly be on strategy (what is the option/prime ratio I should use?), not tyre management. Nobody would have made a fus about 4 stops if the drivers were able to push 95% during all 5 stints.

Marko, Mateschitz & Hembery have all said RB would lap the field if the tyres are changed. I'd trust their opinions although of course everyone is free to their own.

With regards qualifying, RB were a second clear in Melbourne and Malaysia. They have dialled back the one lap pace to stretch out the tyre life in the race as noted by Vettel & Horner.

I think we would all prefer to see tyres that wear out predictably to 2/3 stop races. Some people however don't want the consequence that whilst we would have racing, most of the racing would be for 3rd place behind Vettel & Webber.

[turbof1]

But how much better is that against the current situation? Halfway the race it was getting clear that Alonso was going to win the race, very comfortably. Up to this point we had not a single race where we had a fight for the win near the end of the race. The most excitement coming from that front was webber-vettel in malaysia, and only because vettel went against his team, who clearly was ordered to stay position to...safe tyres.

So instead of having one guy driving the others off the charts, we now have each race a different driver driving the others off the charts. Its not exactly an improvement.

[Jonnycraig]

But how much better is that against the current situation? Halfway the race it was getting clear that Alonso was going to win the race, very comfortably. Up to this point we had not a single race where we had a fight for the win near the end of the race. The most excitement coming from that front was webber-vettel in malaysia, and only because vettel went against his team, who clearly was ordered to stay position to...safe tyres.

So instead of having one guy driving the others off the charts, we now have each race a different driver driving the others off the charts. Its not exactly an improvement.

In 2011 there was plenty of good racing whilst Vettel cruised to victories. In 2012 there was plenty of good racing even whilst Vettel cruised in Singapore, Japan, India. Vettel v Hamilton in Austin was a great battle. Vettel driving from last to third in Abu Dhabi was exciting to watch.

At the moment nobody is racing. Drivers are letting cars go past to drive their own time trials. Obviously Ferrari, Alonso and ABRBs are fine with Alonso cruising to the title and tedium behind him for viewers. I'd wager most viewers though would rather see lots of genuine racing and a winner 30 seconds down the road than no racing and a winner 30 seconds down the road.

[timbo]

What is there to comprehend? Without changes to the tyres and presuming Alonso doesn't drive into anyone else he'll have the WDC wrapped up before the flyaways. With changes, Vettel will have the WDC wrapped up before the flyaways. We apparently shouldn't change to tyres to avoid RB domination, but nobody believes we should change the tyres to avoid Ferrari domination.

You can't be certain where Alonso had end up in Malaysia and in Bahrain there's no guarantee he would be ahead of Vettel. And if you look at last year, you'd see Vettel dominating in Bahrain and suffering in Spain. You'd also see that his result in China this year is much better than in last year's race.
It's not like their position is worse this year than it was last year.
And looking only at Vettel and Alonso you forget Lotus and Raikkonen who have a great season so far. Is it fair if the changed tyres doesn't suit them?

[Phil]

As per my point above, I think the situation is very complicated.

Obviously, it is possible to design a quick car that is inherently good with the tyres or inherently bad. Watching the races so far, I also think it is safe to say that being good on tyres goes beyond the set-up of the car and the drivers ability to drive around them. If I am to take a guess, I would say it's also to a very big degree down to suspension, perhaps engine power delivery (torque/acceleration) and the blowing of the exhaust gasses.

When most teams designed their 2013 cars, the Pirelli tyres for the 2013 were largely unknown. They may have had some input and perhaps the 2012 tyres to go by (as well as some numbers from their tests where the prototyp tyres were introduced last year in the practice session) as some form of benchmark, but I still think most teams had to design a car around estimates. What you then end up at the pre-season testing were cars with distinct aero designs and compromises. Some of them worked from the get-go with the new tyres, some clearly don't.

IMO Lotus are one of the teams that are doing rather well with tyres, Mercedes isn't. Of course one can say Lotus did a better job at designing their car around the tyres no one effectively tested until pre-season testing, but is it really that simple? The more extreme you make something with limited testing, the more you end up with a lottery where a team might luck into a solution that works well.

The cars are what they are to a large degree. Of course, some teams will be able to bring updates that will minimize the damage, but I also think with some teams, that damage will not be solvable unless they make radical changes to the design choices of their car. I feel McLaren are one of those teams, possibly Mercedes as well. Is this fair?

What also flaws the picture is that every track is different. A car might be bad on its tyres on one track, but better on another. Other cars might be good on most tracks, but not best. Others might be bad on most tracks on a given day depending weather conditions.

What I clearly don't like about the situation is that any changes Pirelli make to the tyre will sway the championship one way or the other. Lotus seems to be inherently good on the tyre, so if Pirelli changes the compound to be less sensitive, they will suffer (edit: they're advantage will decrease).

IMO - the root of the problem is that teams when designing their car, had effectively little knowlege of the tyres and how the car would behave on them. If Pirelli at least stuck to the same tyres over multiple seasons, then teams could focus on the information they had from the previous year. With changing compounds every year, the lottery always starts at zero. If the tyres were a 'constant' (in other words, not a moving target), it wouldn't be a lottery anymore.

[FW17]

Lotus had illegally access to data from the R30 pirelli tests

[hollus]

I'll start with a disclaimer: the teams had to design their cars with limited knowledge of how this year's tires would behave, and that introduces some randomness on which teams treat their tires well.
Some randomness, with emphasis on "some".
To me the sentence "the team with the most downforce should win, and tires shouldn't limit them" makes as much sense as "the team with the most horsepower should win, and the engine's and fuel weight shouldn't limit them". The team with the most downforce has won for many years, but lately everyone got so good at extracting the most downforce from the ruleset that that had started to change, and even Red Bull had started making some concessions to efficiency (they often ran less than maximum angles), and that started before the Pirellis.
This year the emphasis has moved away from peak downforce even more, and probably from peak anything, and a team can benefit from a large setup window, and this was predictable before march and during the whole design phase. A large setup window, which normally comes at the cost of peak anything, increases the chances that your car will be able to work close to optimum with the tires at any given track. Alonso didn't luck into a car that was relatively fast in all 5 tracks so far, and he didn't luck into good race pace. Ferrari chose, based on past experiences, to make the car as adaptable as possible, to the point of moving pieces around just to reduce adjustment times. Red Bull's peak downforce will still pay off at some tracks this year, and it was their choice (and they do lead the championship).

One last comment: Soccer games that end up 5-3 are so great only because most other games end 1-0.

[maxxer]

As i said on another thread , you can't explain that you are cutting costs on one end, but wasting money on the other.
The tyres are made in turkey trucked to the uk then trucked back to the track.
After a race the old tyres are trucked back to the uk.
It is a waste of resources.
Even if they want 2-3 pitstops per race they should focus on 1-2 right now they are making a scene where it is ok for boy racers to ruin their tyres just for fun as in F1 they do also.

[Phil]

This year the emphasis has moved away from peak downforce even more, and probably from peak anything, and a team can benefit from a large setup window, and this was predictable before march and during the whole design phase. A large setup window, which normally comes at the cost of peak anything, increases the chances that your car will be able to work close to optimum with the tires at any given track.

I guess I can agree with that. But what about the influence of temperature range? The tyres have a working range - and how long a car can keep the tyre in that working range is somewhat dependant on the downforce, obviously the track, but I would also think the blown exhaust gasses as well, which direct some of the heat towards the tyre. Of course, this is all within the teams ability to change or plan for, but the more extreme you make the tyre, the more you are decreasing the number of combinations that could working well.

And in this sport, any tenth of a second can dictate where you finish.

I also think that while teams were reasonably prepared of what to expect for this years tyres - no one could explicately know for sure. Everyone took a chance and rough estimates on what they thought was to expect. At least if the tyres were unchanged, then it would be fair play - although I still think there should be a limit to how extreme the tyres should be. The more extreme the tyres become, the more you decrease the solutions that are bound to work. And that doesn't bring the field together, it widens it. Only in this case - we might have the lottery that with every new race, the lottery will favour a different team, hence over the coarse of a championship, the drivers end up closer.

IMO, this is the wrong way. I would rather have a championship where a team might be strongest, but not in a dominant fashion (although IMO that is still preferable than a pure chaos), rather then races where with every race, there's a different winner.

[Dragonfly]

I think one thing FIA can do is to ease the parc ferme rules and allow setup changes between qualification and race. This I think would be fair to all teams so that they could use the specific features and advantages of their cars to the optimum. It's really a grave feeling to see talented and known to be fast and competitive guys drive like running barefooted and not able to do anything.
This is on the background of the current tyres which introduce a very large variable and are definitely almost impossible to predict. So instead of changing the tyres mid-season, give the teams some more options.

[hollus]

That makes a lot of sense. Wasn´t the reason to introduce that Parc Ferme after quali to mix things a bit for the race, so that the teams would have to choose optimum for the race or for quali, but not both? Things are now very, very, very well mixed anyways. Removing the Parc Ferme would be an easy fix, and fair to all, IMO.

[Neno]

That makes a lot of sense. Wasn´t the reason to introduce that Parc Ferme after quali to mix things a bit for the race, so that the teams would have to choose optimum for the race or for quali, but not both? Things are now very, very, very well mixed anyways. Removing the Parc Ferme would be an easy fix, and fair to all, IMO.

Wait wut? We need to change rules for Red Bull and Mercedes? Why? This whole topic started because of two of them,
and now we discuss about changing rules Why we didnt discuss about that last or 2 year ago when Red Bull win championship. From next year you will have new f1, new era new cars. Deal with it until then.