FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Since our search function is currently struggling, I couldn't come up with the Rubber for 2011 thread discussing Pirelli. I know DRS may be the most detested, I mean discussed technical topic in the sport, but in my opinion, Pirelli rubber was worse. It was bad enough that the artificiality of tires mean that you had a complete performance precipice within two laps, but the fact that it was inconsistent throughout the season. Some events the tires lasted entirely longer that they were supposed to last, and in other venues the options would disintegrate and the primes were useless.

The net effect of this is that we're not seeing the full capability of the cars, and we're not seeing the full capability of the drivers, so it's a compounded loss for the sport in my opinion. I'd much rather watch a race that has little overtaking but lots and lots of overtaking attempts than watch cars being blown blown because of artificial means.

[acosmichippo]

I agree regarding the inconsistency. But we can hope that 2012 will be better now that Pirelli has 2011's data to use as a benchmark.

[myownalias]

I would rather have two tyre manufacturers with a single compound for dry races... get rid of the enforced tyre compound changes, if a driver/team wants to run one set of tyres, let them!!!

[racechick]

To all those suggestions. I hate it that the drivers have to keep holding back all the time. This is supposed to be the pinnacle!

[HamiltonisGOD]

The current rules are rubbish! There should be qualifying tyres like the heyday, and none of this enforced tyre change, sauber in particular could of had great results by running the whole race on one set!!!!

F1 is more spec-series where one team (the sugar drinks) are given a free pass by Bernest cause he likes their top driver, to bend rules.

[What's Burning?]

OMG I can't believe I forgot about the qualifying fiasco. To be fair that's not Pirelli's fault though.

[scotty]

Tyres are still a black art to a large extent even in F1 so this season was always going to be a lot of trial and error.

Still, i don't see why you can simply call fast wearing tyres 'artificial', everyone has the same tyres it's not like DRS. And what would people rather have, a bit of unpredictability or pretty much the exact same things (in terms of strategy anyway) happening in every race as in 2010?! How can you say the tyres are a net loss when they directly caused great races such as China and Monaco...

[What's Burning?]

Tyres are still a black art to a large extent even in F1 so this season was always going to be a lot of trial and error.

Still, i don't see why you can simply call fast wearing tyres 'artificial', everyone has the same tyres it's not like DRS. And what would people rather have, a bit of unpredictability or pretty much the exact same things (in terms of strategy anyway) happening in every race as in 2010?! How can you say the tyres are a net loss when they directly caused great races such as China and Monaco...

See my post above. They've damaged qualifying, and we're by no means able to see what the cars and drivers can do. I say artificial because if Pirelli wanted to design one tire to last the entire race, they easily could so what can be more artificial than designing a tire that self destructs? It's a matter of a certain wish list presented to them, in order to create excitement in the sport just like DRS. The issue in 2010 stemmed more from everyone having the same fuel load than from tire design.

[myownalias]

The Pirelli tyres got better as the season progressed but at the start of the season, forcing teams into four or five stops is ridiculous, fast degrading tyres are artificial, they are designed to create overtaking by degradation, which is the same situation of forcing drivers to use two compounds, artificial measures to create overtaking, just the same as DRS and to a less extent KERS. Hell, Bernie might as well introduce artificial wet races, these are all solutions to a problem that can be solved by having less reliance on aero... the combination of tyres, DRS and KERS has made racing less exciting in my opinion, watching one car breeze past another half way down the main straight is not fun to watch!

[scotty]

I would say the increased number of stops at the start of the season was quite largely due to the lack of knowledge about them at the time. You cannot underestimate the impact that the learning process has had over the course of the season. 4 stops in a race isn't new either, i remember Schumacher using that tactic to beat Alonso in France a couple of years back.

Tyres are still a black art to a large extent even in F1 so this season was always going to be a lot of trial and error.

Still, i don't see why you can simply call fast wearing tyres 'artificial', everyone has the same tyres it's not like DRS. And what would people rather have, a bit of unpredictability or pretty much the exact same things (in terms of strategy anyway) happening in every race as in 2010?! How can you say the tyres are a net loss when they directly caused great races such as China and Monaco...

See my post above. They've damaged qualifying, and we're by no means able to see what the cars and drivers can do. I say artificial because if Pirelli wanted to design one tire to last the entire race, they easily could so what can be more artificial than designing a tire that self destructs? It's a matter of a certain wish list presented to them, in order to create excitement in the sport just like DRS. The issue in 2010 stemmed more from everyone having the same fuel load than from tire design.

Tyres wear out, that's what they do. Softer tyres wear out faster, always have done and always will do. Why would you want hard tyres that last the distance? To make it harder for guys to overtake again? Whatever the answer to that is... you're changing the way things go, in order to try and achieve a specific goal. That's the exact same thought process as what Pirelli are already doing just with a different outcome. So who is to say what's artificial and what's not in that respect?

I also do not get this whole thing about not being able to see what the cars and drivers can do, i've read it so many times now. It's just untrue, we can see what the drivers and cars can do just in a different way to before. The only thing that has changed is how the ultimate pace per lap diminishes over a stint. As before, some guys can keep nearer that ultimate pace better than others, nothing has changed there.

Qualifying, meh, it hasn't actually changed anything because the cars were fairly consistent in terms of relative outright pace this season, in the top 4 teams anyway. I can't honestly say that i think not seeing what was usually a Force India do a lap in Q3, only to end up in more or less the same position anyway is a great loss for me.

By your logic any time there has ever been a tyre war, that is artificial cause it fundamentally alters the playing field. And things like refuelling are too, as that was brought in for entertainment purposes in 1994... Same for the banning of driver aids, TC, engine braking, active suspension etc etc. The list goes on!

[Ichabod]

I dont think the Pirelli's added to the spectacle of F1 as i want to see drivers pushing to the limit lap after lap, not waiting to see who blinks first come pitstop time to get the undercut

I would like to see pirelli nominate say three or four compounds for a weekend
then after practice two on friday the teams have to choose which two compounds to use for Qualifying and the race,
no mandatory stop,
also if you dont set a lap-time in Quali its to the back of the grid with you

[What's Burning?]

Tyres wear out, that's what they do. Softer tyres wear out faster, always have done and always will do. Why would you want hard tyres that last the distance? To make it harder for guys to overtake again? Whatever the answer to that is... you're changing the way things go, in order to try and achieve a specific goal. That's the exact same thought process as what Pirelli are already doing just with a different outcome. So who is to say what's artificial and what's not in that respect?

I'm not arguing about the fact that soft tires wear our faster than hards, we know. What I'm calling artificial is the precipice of a fall off that was DESIGNED into the tires, yes in my opinion that is artificial, like a lot of other thing in the sport today designed to increase overtaking.

What I'm against is a laudry list of these artificial changes that in the end, net nothing meaningful to the sport, if it's hard to pass, then it's hard to pass, I'm willing to live with that, let the good overtakers fight for each pass.

I also do not get this whole thing about not being able to see what the cars and drivers can do, i've read it so many times now. It's just untrue, we can see what the drivers and cars can do just in a different way to before. The only thing that has changed is how the ultimate pace per lap diminishes over a stint. As before, some guys can keep nearer that ultimate pace better than others, nothing has changed there.

It's a matter of opinion Scotty. Seeing how well a driver can nurse his tires may be an absolutely fantastic skill, but don't try to pass it off as exciting.

Qualifying, meh, it hasn't actually changed anything because the cars were fairly consistent in terms of relative outright pace this season, in the top 4 teams anyway. I can't honestly say that i think not seeing what was usually a Force India do a lap in Q3, only to end up in more or less the same position anyway is a great loss for me.

It's a loss for the fans, it's a loss not seeing Kobayashi go all out in Japan Q3, I know, my opinion, but why not have it? Why not give it to the fans paying a week's salary for a ticket.

By your logic any time there has ever been a tyre war, that is artificial cause it fundamentally alters the playing field. And things like refuelling are too, as that was brought in for entertainment purposes in 1994... Same for the banning of driver aids, TC, engine braking, active suspension etc etc. The list goes on!

That's a stretch, but if we are projecting logic, the issue is really over regulating the sport, not under regulating it.

[darwin dali]

I think Pirelli did an outstanding job considering the circumstances. They came in cold and they delivered. They were asked to design tires that degrade more than the 2010 Bridgestones and that's what they did. And it added to the racing spectacle.
It was the same novelty experience for all drivers (well, except for Heidfeld, but look where he's now? ) and all teams - some coped better than others. And that's part of what F1 is to me.

[What's Burning?]

I think Pirelli did an outstanding job considering the circumstances. They came in cold and they delivered. They were asked to design tires that degrade more than the 2010 Bridgestones and that's what they did. And it added to the racing spectacle.
It was the same novelty experience for all drivers (well, except for Heidfeld, but look where he's now? ) and all teams - some coped better than others. And that's part of what F1 is to me.

Yes, the I was simply following orders defense, I'm familiar with it.

[racechick]

I'm not arguing about the fact that soft tires wear our faster than hards, we know. What I'm calling artificial is the precipice of a fall off that was DESIGNED into the tires, yes in my opinion that is artificial, like a lot of other thing in the sport today designed to increase overtaking.

What I'm against is a laudry list of these artificial changes that in the end, net nothing meaningful to the sport, if it's hard to pass, then it's hard to pass, I'm willing to live with that, let the good overtakers fight for each pass.

It's a matter of opinion Scotty. Seeing how well a driver can nurse his tires may be an absolutely fantastic skill, but don't try to pass it off as exciting.

Yes! Especially the bit I bolded.