- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
May be worth thinking about this point a bit. "Chummy-chummy" is not how I would describe it. Let me give you the perspective of Bridgestone going into 2004: It's a tire war, and you want to win. Not only do you want the champ to be on your tires, but you want your tires to score the most total points period. You want to be the premiere tire supplier. Last year, Michael Schumacher did win on Bridgestones - just barely edging out Kimi (Michelin) by 2 points. Similarly, Ferrari edged out Williams (Michelin) 158-144 in the constructors. So the championship is by no mean "a lock."THX723 wrote:Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days.
A friend of mine worked for a Bridgestone-running team back then. And the tyres were designed for Ferrari. The other teams got what they were given. Sometimes Bridgestone made a couple of variations and would say to Ferrari "you want this one". The other teams got the other variation. Sometimes, Ferrari ended up with the wrong tyre and, the next race, the other teams suddenly got the other variation and Ferrari the faster version.Jersey Tom wrote:It's not that Bridgestone is making a tire ONLY for Michael that only he can drive or anything like that.
I still say in that situation, Michael is going to pick the best tire period. It's in BSFS's best interest to develop with the driver most likely to get a championship for them... but the mentality of "Well Bridgestone designed this tire with Ferrari it's not the best for us" falls close to the line of BS. Or I should say, "Bridgestone designed this tire for Ferrari it won't work for us" is indeed not true. It can seem that way at times from a race team depending on your position (both within the team, and the team within the field) but it's just not the case from a tire company and performance engineering on the whole.Just_a_fan wrote:A friend of mine worked for a Bridgestone-running team back then. And the tyres were designed for Ferrari.Jersey Tom wrote:It's not that Bridgestone is making a tire ONLY for Michael that only he can drive or anything like that.
Kimi contradicts VettelJonnycraig wrote:
As an aside, Vettel claims Lotus drivers are complaining as much as anyone in the driver meetings:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22624756Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel said: "In the media, it looks like Red Bull is complaining, but I hear the drivers' voices in the meetings we have together, and if you pinpoint Lotus and say they have the best car for these tyres, still their drivers complain.
"They have the same problem as us but to a lesser extent."
Pour moi, cela n’est pas vraiment différent de l’année dernière. Je ne comprends donc pas les jérémiades de certains
Je ne pense donc pas que ces nouveaux pneus vont faire une grande différence. Je pourrais avoir tort mais, quoi qu’il arrive, nous ne commencerons pas à nous plaindre.
Räikkönen fährt nicht mit 80 Prozent
Räikkönen will auch die Kritik einiger Kollegen nicht bestätigen, dass die Reifen zum Langsamfahren zwingen. "Wir fahren so schnell wir können. Natürlich gibt es Grenzen, die einem das Auto oder die Reifen vorgeben. Wenn du mit einem Reifensatz länger fahren willst als die anderen, kannst du nicht 100 Prozent geben. Ich würde aber auch nicht behaupten, dass ich nur mit 80 Prozent unterwegs wäre."
Well said, sir. =D>When you look back at the pillars that the sport is built on, the history, you see dominance, individual brilliance and engineering marvels. Not strategy. To give but a few examples - the Silver Arrows absolutely dominated the sport and built a reputation that stands today - McLaren/Honda, does anymore need to be said - Williams active suspension - nothing touched those cars - Ferrari & Schumacher - the epitome of dominance - RB7, supreme.
Strategy was nowhere to be seen. Teams were not pre-planning out stops to get a 'undercut' nor were they ever considering letting other cars past on track to hopefully wash out near the top at the finish. There was but one goal - build the fastest car and leave everyone for dust. That's the goal of every racer. That's what we've lost.
'Strategy' is a PR term used to validate having a close show - which is what the powers that be want only because they said they had falling numbers of viewers. Simple. This has nothing to do with the preservation of the sport, or the spirit of the sport - it's numbers and cash. They could of all taken a cash hit and kept the sport 'pure' - but they all sold out for the highest dollar and created a bastard child of advertising & racing - that no-one is happy is with.
Honestly, why does it matter when the championship was decided, if cars can only overtake when the track is wet? Maybe the chamionship went down to the wire, but other than Spa and Brazil(both wet), what races do you remember as being exciting?turbof1 wrote: I am waiting for the bashing to begin about the year before when the title was won in the very last turn.
And you obv dont know we cant compare cars of the 80s and early 90s with now, if we had that aero now we could do hard tires but we dont.strad wrote:Another person that can't remember more than a decade back.except make them harder, which would lead to static racing
We had hard tires AND good racing for years...It's just this greedy desire to slash lap times every year that has led to gumball tires and a tracks awash in clag.
I dont rly understand how you can firstly name different dominating eras of the sport and then go on to say they sold out when the last dominating era we had, Ferrari-Schumi, wouldnt have happend unless they had poured money into it.MOWOG wrote:Things move so quickly in this thread, it is hard to keep up. But there was one post earlier today by Cam that I thought was worthy of repeating, as it summarized succinctly my own view of these matters.
Well said, sir. =D>When you look back at the pillars that the sport is built on, the history, you see dominance, individual brilliance and engineering marvels. Not strategy. To give but a few examples - the Silver Arrows absolutely dominated the sport and built a reputation that stands today - McLaren/Honda, does anymore need to be said - Williams active suspension - nothing touched those cars - Ferrari & Schumacher - the epitome of dominance - RB7, supreme.
Strategy was nowhere to be seen. Teams were not pre-planning out stops to get a 'undercut' nor were they ever considering letting other cars past on track to hopefully wash out near the top at the finish. There was but one goal - build the fastest car and leave everyone for dust. That's the goal of every racer. That's what we've lost.
'Strategy' is a PR term used to validate having a close show - which is what the powers that be want only because they said they had falling numbers of viewers. Simple. This has nothing to do with the preservation of the sport, or the spirit of the sport - it's numbers and cash. They could of all taken a cash hit and kept the sport 'pure' - but they all sold out for the highest dollar and created a bastard child of advertising & racing - that no-one is happy is with.
Neno wrote:Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
I am not sure if Paul Hembry is capable to understand such logic. Paul and Pirelli are crazy for press coverage they they would like to the center of attention more than the new turbo cars. I would expect the same if they are signed up for a dew more years.lebesset wrote:Neno wrote:Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
if you read the statements on the FIA press conference pirelli have already stated that , if still the supplier in 2014 , they will provide more conservative tyres as the cars are unknown and the teams will have enough problems to solve !
tyres will not be needed to spice up the racing , the new formula will do that ...unless a team comes up with the killer design of course !
Not even that. The old tyres could actually be raced in Canada if they're not happy with the new ones. Could be that the new tyres will only be run in 1 of the FP'sturbof1 wrote:From what I get out of this article:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107618
is that we will see new tyres in Canada. Force India wants to try them out first, before changes are final. So the possibility is there that we have new tyres in Canada, only to be changed back after that race.